From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Feasibility of producing a 12-cylinder car for the 1931 Show, considering competitor models and existing company commitments.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 137\4\ scan0193 | |
| Date | 5th February 1931 | |
| Secret and Confidential. To R.{Sir Henry Royce} From Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Sg{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD}16/E5.2.31 - 2- and high speeds. As regards the low speed torque reaction, which they also suffer from, it is encouraging as the result of the experimental work done on 24-EX to find that this has been smoothed out to an extent which I feel would not be complained about if we could reproduce it on our standard car. The next point in your memo. is in regard to pushing on as quickly as possible with double 28HP, i.e. a 12 cylinder, and having it ready in time for the next Show. Our view is that it would be hopeless to try to best the 8 litre Bentley with a 6 cylinder car and that, even if we started with an entirely new engine, it would be difficult to produce equal results with 6 cylinders. We, therefore, agree that the reply to the 8 litre Bentley is a 12 cylinder car, but it is quite clear that, even if we had nothing else to do whatsoever in the Design and Experimental Departments, it would be impossible to produce such a car in time for the 1931 Show, especially in view of Japan III programme and the Schneider Trophy, and this also ignores all question of our commitments to Phantom II material and our contract with the American Company. The double 28HP would mean a £56 tax. Whether this is of vital importance or not, it is very difficult to say. You will remember the double 12 Daimler, which was brought out with such a flourish of trumpets some three years ago at a £50 tax, and the car certainly was a failure, not necessarily because of the tax but because it was generally regarded as being an unnecessarily large, heavy and cumbersome automobile. The idea of course of being able to use the same parts such as cylinder head, cylinders, valves etc. etc. for both chassis is very attractive but, unless this were found feasible to a considerable extent, the benefit gained in that way would not be sufficiently great to cause us to make a car with a larger size engine than we consider really necessary. a 8-litreI do not think we used anything larger than | ||